In 2010, Greenberg was released, written by Noah Baumbach (story by Baumbach and Jennifer Jason Leigh), directed by Noah Baumbach, and starring Ben Stiller, Rhys Ifans, Greta Gerwig, and Jennifer Jason Leigh. This is a very low key comedy that fits in with Baumbach's other works, and is highly recommended.
Following a nervous breakdown, Roger Greenberg (Ben Stiller) house sits for his brother's family. He is a very quirky guy. He writes letters of complaint to large companies, he doesn't drive (and he is in LA), he always seems on the edge of another mental collapse. While he is at the house, he begins to fall for the "maid/nanny" type lady Florence (Greta Gerwig). She finds him interesting, but wants to take things slow, which confuses Greenberg, but then again, so does everything. His opinions alienate most people he knows without understanding that. He gets back in contact with one of his old band mates Ivan (Rhys Ifans) who drives Greenberg where he needs to go sometimes, but obviously just tolerates Greenberg. His biggest personal flaw is not letting anyone inside to his inner self. He thinks he is by remembered mundane details from years earlier, and the self-centered talking, but really he just alienates everyone. The best quote (even though there are many) is: "A shrink said to me once that I have trouble living in the present, so I linger on the past because I felt like I never really lived it in the first place, you know?" Greenberg is a very flawed character, but very real too. Something about him draws Florence to him, but at the same time pushes her away. But that's how Greenberg is.
It's hard to really explain this movie to someone who has seen any Noah Baumbach movies. His movies are typically comedies, but the hilarity is so low key that many would miss it. There are moments that make you laugh out loud, but in any other movie, they wouldn't even elicit a chuckle. That's the genius of Baumbach. He creates an atmosphere that brings you into the movie and feel the flow of it. The hilarious in his movies are barely chuckles in others, but then again his movies are very down to earth and not outlandish in any way. There is realism in his movies. Greenberg is the perfect example of this. One can only get away with this in an independent movie, and Baumbach succeeds admirably.
I highly recommend this movie, but with all other Baumbach movies, you may go to a sad place and question yourself for awhile, but that's only because of the real quality of the movie. It almost makes you feel like a voyeur, it's so real. But you will be glad you watched when you are finished.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVcIUSpz2v0
PS- If you notice, this takes place in Los Angeles. Baumbach does not use the glamorous sites of LA, and instead used what the majority of LA looks like. I've been there several times, and I like that it (like the rest of the movie) is grounded in reality that there is nothing cleaned up for the film. Everything is just as it is (just like the themes of Baumbach's movies).
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Numb
In 2007, a movie called Numb was released, written and directed by Harris Goldberg, and starring Matthew Perry, Kevin Pollak, and Mary Steenburgen. This is a fascinating movie, and one with a formula I shouldn't have liked, but I very much did.
Numb is about a screenwriter (Matthew Perry) who has Acute Dispersonalization Disorder. This means that what he feels doesn't feel real to him. He is easily overwhelmed by the world's mundane sights and occurrences and is prone to nervous bobbing of the legs. His writing partner (Kevin Pollak) doesn't take him very seriously, so he doesn't receive much support there. He begins to go on a search to make it go away. In the process, he visits therapist after therapist (and even having an affair with one), he goes through experiences that he would never have done on his own, and he meets the girl of his dreams, which only makes him try harder.
It is true that this is a romantic comedy, but it is made so well, that one can forget that's what it is. The comedy in this movie is very subtle at times, which I think works perfectly since Matthew Perry is also being very subtle. His acting is almost like what Brent Spiner had to do for Star Trek. There are some great scenes where he is making out or having sex with women, but he is just looking around the room, obviously bored. The only person that doesn't happen with is the character Sara, who brings out his nervous side. He doesn't want to tell her about his disorder, so he comes across as just odd for awhile. Then when he does tell her, she goes on a crusade with him to help get him treatments. Naturally, they split up, which sends Perry into a crusade to make the disorder go away.
This is very much a comedy. In fact, this movie is quite hilarious at times. There are some achingly poignant moments too. Perry's biggest fear is the death of his father. He won't even say the word 'death' because he is afraid that it might kill his father. A therapist (that's he's sleeping with) finally gets him to say the word death, and when nothing happened, he is relieved, until shortly afterward, he learns that his dad did die. He realizes his biggest enemy is this disorder, so his crusade takes him into a study about the disorder, hoping to meet others and discuss what it's like to suffer from it. It turns out that he is the only subject and the study only reveals that he is indeed suffering from the disorder, which he knew before he started. Mary Steenburgen is by far one the funniest characters in the movie, even though you don't see much of her. Also, Kevin Pollak was great. Of course, Perry was perfect in this role.
In the end, Perry learns that in order to move on with life, he must accept the disorder as it is, and move on. He must learn to live with it since it won't go away. One just has to do the best they can with what they have. It ends happily, but it doesn't end with the normal kissing embrace. Instead, it ends similar to Sideways: you somewhat know, but since you aren't really shown, you can imply your own ending. Very well done. I highly recommend this movie.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQiNBfgBvoY
Numb is about a screenwriter (Matthew Perry) who has Acute Dispersonalization Disorder. This means that what he feels doesn't feel real to him. He is easily overwhelmed by the world's mundane sights and occurrences and is prone to nervous bobbing of the legs. His writing partner (Kevin Pollak) doesn't take him very seriously, so he doesn't receive much support there. He begins to go on a search to make it go away. In the process, he visits therapist after therapist (and even having an affair with one), he goes through experiences that he would never have done on his own, and he meets the girl of his dreams, which only makes him try harder.
It is true that this is a romantic comedy, but it is made so well, that one can forget that's what it is. The comedy in this movie is very subtle at times, which I think works perfectly since Matthew Perry is also being very subtle. His acting is almost like what Brent Spiner had to do for Star Trek. There are some great scenes where he is making out or having sex with women, but he is just looking around the room, obviously bored. The only person that doesn't happen with is the character Sara, who brings out his nervous side. He doesn't want to tell her about his disorder, so he comes across as just odd for awhile. Then when he does tell her, she goes on a crusade with him to help get him treatments. Naturally, they split up, which sends Perry into a crusade to make the disorder go away.
This is very much a comedy. In fact, this movie is quite hilarious at times. There are some achingly poignant moments too. Perry's biggest fear is the death of his father. He won't even say the word 'death' because he is afraid that it might kill his father. A therapist (that's he's sleeping with) finally gets him to say the word death, and when nothing happened, he is relieved, until shortly afterward, he learns that his dad did die. He realizes his biggest enemy is this disorder, so his crusade takes him into a study about the disorder, hoping to meet others and discuss what it's like to suffer from it. It turns out that he is the only subject and the study only reveals that he is indeed suffering from the disorder, which he knew before he started. Mary Steenburgen is by far one the funniest characters in the movie, even though you don't see much of her. Also, Kevin Pollak was great. Of course, Perry was perfect in this role.
In the end, Perry learns that in order to move on with life, he must accept the disorder as it is, and move on. He must learn to live with it since it won't go away. One just has to do the best they can with what they have. It ends happily, but it doesn't end with the normal kissing embrace. Instead, it ends similar to Sideways: you somewhat know, but since you aren't really shown, you can imply your own ending. Very well done. I highly recommend this movie.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQiNBfgBvoY
Friday, July 16, 2010
Pretty Bird
In 2008, Pretty Bird was released, written by Zene Baker and Paul Schneider, directed by Paul Schneider, and starring Paul Giamatti and Billy Crudup. This a great dark comedy, showing independent filmmaking in a great way.
This movie is about Curtis (Billy Crudup)who decides he wants to make a rocket belt (the personal rocket that was used in the beginning of Thunderball, if anyone remembers). He is a slick-talking business man who convinces his childhood friend Kenny to help finance the endeavor. They need a rocket scientist so they enlist Rick (Paul Giamatti) to build the belt. Tensions are always high as Kenny will believe anything Curtis says, and Rick is as paranoid and pessimistic as anyone can get. Rick feels left out of all the decisions and since he had been recently screwed over by his last job, he wants partial ownership since he built the rocket belt. While Curtis tries to find financial support, he starts to ostracize Kenny and Rick. Kenny's money runs out as he is forced to close his mattress store, and it seems the partnership is over. Then Curtis hides the rocket belt. Things start to get ugly as no one knows what anyone else is doing or what's going on. Rick abducts Curtis and holds him in a box for 8 days trying to find out what Curtis did with the rocket belt. Curtis escapes, and the movie ends without any resolution of where the rocket belt is or what's happened to everyone.
The dark humor involved is hysterical. Paul Giamatti is at his best playing dark brooding characters, which is exactly what Rick is. Also, he has a sex scene, which is like watching a train wreck (obviously on purpose). The dealings between 3 completely different personalities are fascinating to watch. You know these people won't get along, but you keep watching and wondering how they will dissolve.
I highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes movies that are a little off kilter. It is independent, dark, funny, and at the end of it, makes you want to start it over.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_FvxWAWqA4
This movie is about Curtis (Billy Crudup)who decides he wants to make a rocket belt (the personal rocket that was used in the beginning of Thunderball, if anyone remembers). He is a slick-talking business man who convinces his childhood friend Kenny to help finance the endeavor. They need a rocket scientist so they enlist Rick (Paul Giamatti) to build the belt. Tensions are always high as Kenny will believe anything Curtis says, and Rick is as paranoid and pessimistic as anyone can get. Rick feels left out of all the decisions and since he had been recently screwed over by his last job, he wants partial ownership since he built the rocket belt. While Curtis tries to find financial support, he starts to ostracize Kenny and Rick. Kenny's money runs out as he is forced to close his mattress store, and it seems the partnership is over. Then Curtis hides the rocket belt. Things start to get ugly as no one knows what anyone else is doing or what's going on. Rick abducts Curtis and holds him in a box for 8 days trying to find out what Curtis did with the rocket belt. Curtis escapes, and the movie ends without any resolution of where the rocket belt is or what's happened to everyone.
The dark humor involved is hysterical. Paul Giamatti is at his best playing dark brooding characters, which is exactly what Rick is. Also, he has a sex scene, which is like watching a train wreck (obviously on purpose). The dealings between 3 completely different personalities are fascinating to watch. You know these people won't get along, but you keep watching and wondering how they will dissolve.
I highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes movies that are a little off kilter. It is independent, dark, funny, and at the end of it, makes you want to start it over.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_FvxWAWqA4
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Deep End
In 1970, a movie called Deep End was released, directed by Jerzy Skolimowski, written by Skolimowski, Boleslaw Sulik, and Jerzy Gruza, with no major stars. This is on the surface a darkly humorous coming of age story for a boy at his first job, but is much deeper than it seems. Once I started to see the deeper layers, I thought this was a phenomenal movie.
The story is about Mike, a boy of about 16 who gets his first job at an English bathhouse. He quickly learns that there are politics in getting tips: the women will tip him for his "company", but he is young and has no interest in them. His fellow coworker Susan is an older beautiful woman that takes him under her wing. He starts to have a thing for her. She somewhat toys with Mike, making him a little jealous of her fling with a coach and also her fiance. He starts to go crazy with his jealousy and begins following her and even causing problems for her. His whole quest is to sleep with Susan, and in the end, he finally succeeds, but when she wants to leave and go home to her fiance, Mike wants her to stay and talk awhile. A freak accident that Mike causes leaves her dead in his arms.
At first I found this movie to be a simple coming of age story: virgin guy wants experienced older woman, and finally gets his wish come true. But if you look deeper, you find a dark comedy. Some of the moments in the movie are very funny, and some probably aren't really meant to be, but they are. But if you look even deeper, you see a deeply psychological drama. Mike for instance starts out as a nice kid who just wants to have a decent job. But the job starts showing him the dark side of life, which helps him transition into a bit of a narcissist. He thinks that Susan belongs with him, and he will do anything to get her. And when he thinks he has her, and she leaves to go back to her fiance, he won't let her leave, then flings the lighting apparatus at her, hitting her in the back of the head, and dies. Susan on the other hand seems to be a nice person at first. You can tell she's a bit of an interesting character immediately, because she seems to enjoy toying with Mike, teasing him. She is a bit of a narcissist herself in that she thinks that everyone wants her, and she toys with everyone until they are interested in her. It just so happens that the person who becomes obsessed with her ends up accidentally killing her.
There is a great scene late in the movie when Mike and Susan finally do their act. Mike is a virgin, and Susan is a bit of a swinger. The camerawork favors Mike's perspective during this scene. It is nothing but closeups on parts of their bodies, but uninteresting parts: hair, hands, mouth, eyes, etc. Nothing revealing. There is also no sound. No music. It is focusing on the small, minute details that only someone who's never experienced it would focus on. Great camerawork.
For me, this movie started off a little slowly, but once I figured out that Susan and Mike are having this emotional dance with each other, I realized where it was going, and I paid attention to the layers of the story. I recommend this movie, but to get it all, one must really watch the emotional interactions between Mike and Susan.
Unfortunately, I can't find a trailer for it. But I found a scene with Mike and Susan, where Susan is toying with Mike, and this is before he realized he really wants her - and more importantly, that he could probably have her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuhMKqwfqVw
The story is about Mike, a boy of about 16 who gets his first job at an English bathhouse. He quickly learns that there are politics in getting tips: the women will tip him for his "company", but he is young and has no interest in them. His fellow coworker Susan is an older beautiful woman that takes him under her wing. He starts to have a thing for her. She somewhat toys with Mike, making him a little jealous of her fling with a coach and also her fiance. He starts to go crazy with his jealousy and begins following her and even causing problems for her. His whole quest is to sleep with Susan, and in the end, he finally succeeds, but when she wants to leave and go home to her fiance, Mike wants her to stay and talk awhile. A freak accident that Mike causes leaves her dead in his arms.
At first I found this movie to be a simple coming of age story: virgin guy wants experienced older woman, and finally gets his wish come true. But if you look deeper, you find a dark comedy. Some of the moments in the movie are very funny, and some probably aren't really meant to be, but they are. But if you look even deeper, you see a deeply psychological drama. Mike for instance starts out as a nice kid who just wants to have a decent job. But the job starts showing him the dark side of life, which helps him transition into a bit of a narcissist. He thinks that Susan belongs with him, and he will do anything to get her. And when he thinks he has her, and she leaves to go back to her fiance, he won't let her leave, then flings the lighting apparatus at her, hitting her in the back of the head, and dies. Susan on the other hand seems to be a nice person at first. You can tell she's a bit of an interesting character immediately, because she seems to enjoy toying with Mike, teasing him. She is a bit of a narcissist herself in that she thinks that everyone wants her, and she toys with everyone until they are interested in her. It just so happens that the person who becomes obsessed with her ends up accidentally killing her.
There is a great scene late in the movie when Mike and Susan finally do their act. Mike is a virgin, and Susan is a bit of a swinger. The camerawork favors Mike's perspective during this scene. It is nothing but closeups on parts of their bodies, but uninteresting parts: hair, hands, mouth, eyes, etc. Nothing revealing. There is also no sound. No music. It is focusing on the small, minute details that only someone who's never experienced it would focus on. Great camerawork.
For me, this movie started off a little slowly, but once I figured out that Susan and Mike are having this emotional dance with each other, I realized where it was going, and I paid attention to the layers of the story. I recommend this movie, but to get it all, one must really watch the emotional interactions between Mike and Susan.
Unfortunately, I can't find a trailer for it. But I found a scene with Mike and Susan, where Susan is toying with Mike, and this is before he realized he really wants her - and more importantly, that he could probably have her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuhMKqwfqVw
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Jaws Quadrilogy - Part 2
The second Jaws movie was released in 1978, and was not based on a novel. In fact, Peter Benchley had nothing to do with it. It is a bit of a departure from the first: no more Matt Hooper (although they tried to call him, but he was on the Aurora which mentioned in the first Jaws), more Ellen Brody than the first, it’s no longer the summer season filled with tourists, and the style of the story is different too. A new director (Jeannot Szwarc) adds a completely new style to this movie.
Most people don’t like the second Jaws movie because it’s not as good as the first. And they would be partially correct: it isn’t as good as the first, but not much really can be. The first one (by accident or on purpose) was very much in the style of Hitchcock. The second one on the other hand went about from the beginning to show you the shark. You know it’s going to be a shark movie before it starts, so why hide it from you. The difference is that first time you see the shark, it is burned from an attack on a small boat and its skier. This gives the shark a menacing profile for the rest of the movie. But, on the other hand, this movie begins the series’ break with science too. Would a shark actually speed along, stalking a water skier? Then attack the boat? Probably not. But would a shark investigate a crashed helicopter? Probably. Would it attack the helicopter? Probably not. The movie has its moments with and without science.
This movie follows two storylines: Chief Brody and the high school kids. I find the Brody story to be very interesting. Brody knows right away when a dead killer whale washes on shore that a great white had attacked it, but not even the marine biologist agrees. He becomes obsessed with trying to prove that another shark is back. He fights hard against the city board of elders to prove it. A great scene is where he shoots at a shadow in the water that turns out to be a school of bluefish; however, the beach is filled with families. Mayor Vaughn and the elders revoke his title and fire him, leaving Hendricks to be in charge. The other story is the high school kids. In this community, instead of cruising in their cars, kids go out on their boats to cruise. One day, Brody’s oldest (Michael) goes out with the crew (against his father’s wishes). Sean (Brody’s younger son) persuades Michael to take him along. They decide to sail out to Cable Junction, which is the farthest east one can sail before the open Atlantic Ocean. En route, the shark attacks the sailors and they are set adrift, floating on the wreckage of their boats. They tie the wrecks together to stay safe. Meanwhile, Brody learns that a bunch of kids are out sailing and takes the police boat to find them. After the initial attack on the kids, Michael is injured and the only sailable boat takes him back in for medical attention and to get help. Brody finds this boat and they tell him that his other son is out there. Brody goes on a crusade to find the floating wreck. The kids finally float to Cable Junction and get stuck, which is where Brody finds them. A showdown with the shark ensues.
This movie is obviously not the first, but the story has some very strong parts. The direction isn’t too bad. It is not Steven Spielberg direction, but that’s okay. Szwarc does a good job with what he has. Carl Gottlieb and Howard Sackler return to write this movie, and the ties to the first are very close. I always thought of this movie as being “the next day” even though it is a few years after the first. Unlike the first which used the theme to signify when the shark was present, this movie does not stick with that theme, which makes the viewer wonder where the shark really is. It toys with the viewer a little bit. The scare tactics in this movie are a little clichéd and the whole notions of using teens in trouble is a bit overused (although in 1978, it wasn’t).
But for all it is, it doesn’t scare as much as the first. The first seemed to set up rules, then change them in the third act. This movie just skips all over the place with its rules, which takes the reality out of it. The method of killing the shark was more outlandish than the explosion in the first movie. The acting is questionable with some of the teens.
All in all, it’s a perfectly okay movie. I like it as a second Jaws movie, but as a standalone, it’s not so good. I think it’s worth a viewing though. But most people will say “it’s not good” or “it’s stupid”. But have you really watched it? There were some really good moments.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXd34wdcZkQ
Most people don’t like the second Jaws movie because it’s not as good as the first. And they would be partially correct: it isn’t as good as the first, but not much really can be. The first one (by accident or on purpose) was very much in the style of Hitchcock. The second one on the other hand went about from the beginning to show you the shark. You know it’s going to be a shark movie before it starts, so why hide it from you. The difference is that first time you see the shark, it is burned from an attack on a small boat and its skier. This gives the shark a menacing profile for the rest of the movie. But, on the other hand, this movie begins the series’ break with science too. Would a shark actually speed along, stalking a water skier? Then attack the boat? Probably not. But would a shark investigate a crashed helicopter? Probably. Would it attack the helicopter? Probably not. The movie has its moments with and without science.
This movie follows two storylines: Chief Brody and the high school kids. I find the Brody story to be very interesting. Brody knows right away when a dead killer whale washes on shore that a great white had attacked it, but not even the marine biologist agrees. He becomes obsessed with trying to prove that another shark is back. He fights hard against the city board of elders to prove it. A great scene is where he shoots at a shadow in the water that turns out to be a school of bluefish; however, the beach is filled with families. Mayor Vaughn and the elders revoke his title and fire him, leaving Hendricks to be in charge. The other story is the high school kids. In this community, instead of cruising in their cars, kids go out on their boats to cruise. One day, Brody’s oldest (Michael) goes out with the crew (against his father’s wishes). Sean (Brody’s younger son) persuades Michael to take him along. They decide to sail out to Cable Junction, which is the farthest east one can sail before the open Atlantic Ocean. En route, the shark attacks the sailors and they are set adrift, floating on the wreckage of their boats. They tie the wrecks together to stay safe. Meanwhile, Brody learns that a bunch of kids are out sailing and takes the police boat to find them. After the initial attack on the kids, Michael is injured and the only sailable boat takes him back in for medical attention and to get help. Brody finds this boat and they tell him that his other son is out there. Brody goes on a crusade to find the floating wreck. The kids finally float to Cable Junction and get stuck, which is where Brody finds them. A showdown with the shark ensues.
This movie is obviously not the first, but the story has some very strong parts. The direction isn’t too bad. It is not Steven Spielberg direction, but that’s okay. Szwarc does a good job with what he has. Carl Gottlieb and Howard Sackler return to write this movie, and the ties to the first are very close. I always thought of this movie as being “the next day” even though it is a few years after the first. Unlike the first which used the theme to signify when the shark was present, this movie does not stick with that theme, which makes the viewer wonder where the shark really is. It toys with the viewer a little bit. The scare tactics in this movie are a little clichéd and the whole notions of using teens in trouble is a bit overused (although in 1978, it wasn’t).
But for all it is, it doesn’t scare as much as the first. The first seemed to set up rules, then change them in the third act. This movie just skips all over the place with its rules, which takes the reality out of it. The method of killing the shark was more outlandish than the explosion in the first movie. The acting is questionable with some of the teens.
All in all, it’s a perfectly okay movie. I like it as a second Jaws movie, but as a standalone, it’s not so good. I think it’s worth a viewing though. But most people will say “it’s not good” or “it’s stupid”. But have you really watched it? There were some really good moments.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXd34wdcZkQ
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Mountain of the Cannibal God
**Spoilers Included**
In 1978, a movie called Mountain of the Cannibal God was released, directed by Sergio Martino, written by Sergio Martino and Cesare Frugoni, and starring Ursula Andress and Stacy Keach. This is a movie of the "cannibal movie set in exotic locations with violence that doesn't add to the plot" type of movie.
This movie is an obscure movie from the Italian gore style of movie. The plot follows a woman (Ursula Andress) and her brother who recruit an adventurer (Stacy Keach) to help them find her lost husband in the jungle. The consensus is that the husband went into an island that is legendary for its cannibal islanders. As the story moves along, we find out that the adventurer had been abducted by the cannibal tribe and assimilated, but he had escaped and had watched the village be destroyed. They lose their help, but recruit another adventurer. The first adventurer starts to go crazy at the idea that the cannibals are not all dead, but actually following them. He ends up dying, but the remaining three find an area that is rich in uranium. It is revealed that the husband was going to exploit the mountain for its rich uranium and leave out the wife and her brother, but since they know where the uranium is, they can get rich on their own. One problem: that is the home of the cannibals, who kill the brother, take the second adventurer captive, and make the wife a queen. Why? Because her dead husband has been disfigured by the radioactivity and now has a Geiger reader in his chest that keeps bouncing, so they think he is eternal, and she will reign over them with the corpse. Naturally, the two remaining do escape.
So, now you don't have to watch the movie. And you have to be in a strange mood to even want to watch this movie. The violence against people is almost comical. The blood and the guts do not look real at all. When the first adventurer falls off the waterfall, it is obvious that it's a dummy. The human flesh the cannibals eat doesn't even look like meat, nor do the lizards they eat. But this movie has fills of animal violence which is real, and rather disturbing. They shot footage of animal violence while shooting the movie. There is a bird of prey against a snake, a crocodile against a large turtle, and most infamously a monkey against a python. The director claims the python had been following them during the shoot, and there were monkeys around and they happened to get the footage, but if you slow the movie, you can see the monkey is pushed toward the python who eats it alive slowly.
This movie is not for the faint of heart because the animal violence is real, but with all movies of this type the story is hollow and flimsy. There was no real reason for two adventurers unless they are starting out together, which they don't. A big problem I have is when the wife tells the second adventurer that she and her brother used him to find the uranium, he then rescues her from the cannibals instead of just escaping. Also, I find it odd that Stacy Keach's character dies about halfway through the movie. But my biggest complaint is the use of animal violence all the way through. It adds nothing to the plot and only shocks the audience. I thought the plot with its cannibals and human violence should do that, but of course those effects are crappy, so I guess they couldn't. The only good thing about it is you get to see the beautiful Ursula Andress naked.
Either way, this is a bad movie that could have been so much better. I don't recommend this for viewing unless you want to punish yourself.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMMJyNvQGRA
In 1978, a movie called Mountain of the Cannibal God was released, directed by Sergio Martino, written by Sergio Martino and Cesare Frugoni, and starring Ursula Andress and Stacy Keach. This is a movie of the "cannibal movie set in exotic locations with violence that doesn't add to the plot" type of movie.
This movie is an obscure movie from the Italian gore style of movie. The plot follows a woman (Ursula Andress) and her brother who recruit an adventurer (Stacy Keach) to help them find her lost husband in the jungle. The consensus is that the husband went into an island that is legendary for its cannibal islanders. As the story moves along, we find out that the adventurer had been abducted by the cannibal tribe and assimilated, but he had escaped and had watched the village be destroyed. They lose their help, but recruit another adventurer. The first adventurer starts to go crazy at the idea that the cannibals are not all dead, but actually following them. He ends up dying, but the remaining three find an area that is rich in uranium. It is revealed that the husband was going to exploit the mountain for its rich uranium and leave out the wife and her brother, but since they know where the uranium is, they can get rich on their own. One problem: that is the home of the cannibals, who kill the brother, take the second adventurer captive, and make the wife a queen. Why? Because her dead husband has been disfigured by the radioactivity and now has a Geiger reader in his chest that keeps bouncing, so they think he is eternal, and she will reign over them with the corpse. Naturally, the two remaining do escape.
So, now you don't have to watch the movie. And you have to be in a strange mood to even want to watch this movie. The violence against people is almost comical. The blood and the guts do not look real at all. When the first adventurer falls off the waterfall, it is obvious that it's a dummy. The human flesh the cannibals eat doesn't even look like meat, nor do the lizards they eat. But this movie has fills of animal violence which is real, and rather disturbing. They shot footage of animal violence while shooting the movie. There is a bird of prey against a snake, a crocodile against a large turtle, and most infamously a monkey against a python. The director claims the python had been following them during the shoot, and there were monkeys around and they happened to get the footage, but if you slow the movie, you can see the monkey is pushed toward the python who eats it alive slowly.
This movie is not for the faint of heart because the animal violence is real, but with all movies of this type the story is hollow and flimsy. There was no real reason for two adventurers unless they are starting out together, which they don't. A big problem I have is when the wife tells the second adventurer that she and her brother used him to find the uranium, he then rescues her from the cannibals instead of just escaping. Also, I find it odd that Stacy Keach's character dies about halfway through the movie. But my biggest complaint is the use of animal violence all the way through. It adds nothing to the plot and only shocks the audience. I thought the plot with its cannibals and human violence should do that, but of course those effects are crappy, so I guess they couldn't. The only good thing about it is you get to see the beautiful Ursula Andress naked.
Either way, this is a bad movie that could have been so much better. I don't recommend this for viewing unless you want to punish yourself.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMMJyNvQGRA
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Jaws Quadrilogy - Part 1
So, a lot of people have seen the movie Jaws. Released in 1975, this movie quickly entered pop culture with a band and will not leave anytime soon. Since I've been trying to keep these posts relegated to movies that most people haven't seen, I'm not here to critique Jaws and tell you things that you already know. Instead, I'm going to compare the book to the movie.
The novel Jaws was written by Peter Benchley who went on to write many novels about the oceans and sharks, but Jaws was his debut novel. It was an instant success, and two producers (David Brown and Richard Zanuck) both read the novel and wanted to make it a movie. After one failed director, Zanuck and Brown got Steven Spielberg to direct.
The script went through many versions which is normal, but the versions it went through were interesting. Peter Benchley wrote the first draft of the script. He was told to cut out the backstory and make it a simple A-Z adventure story. So, he did. Spielberg read the book, then wrote a complete script of his own, which very little stayed in the movie from. Howard Sackler, the great playwright, made a draft, but asked that his name be kept off the credits because he couldn't commit entirely to the movie. Carl Gottlieb wrote a draft of the script as well, and actually has a part in the movie (Meadows, the reporter). Also, John Milius, Sackler, and Robert Shaw wrote parts of the USS Indianapolis speech. Filming was never-ending, as it took about 8 months to film. But when it was released, it was an immediate sensation.
The story, on the other hand, was similar to the book's, but it deviated many times for many reasons. It's hard to say which was the biggest change. In my opinion, the interactions of the characters was the biggest. In the movie, Hooper and Brody become good friends very quickly, whereas the book shows them constantly about to jump at each other, mostly out of jealousy and distrust. Quint is like a hired hand in the book who doesn't really care about anything but making a little money for his trouble until the very end. Another big difference is the change of backstory. In the book, Hooper was from the island as was Ellen. Ellen and Hooper's older brother once dated, and when Hooper comes back to town, they start a tryst (which is where the distrust comes between Hooper and Brody). In the movie, Ellen and Brody are not from the island. Also, they are new to the island, whereas the book puts them in their fourth year on the island, so they know a lot about the island. Another bit that I don't think worked was Mayor Vaughn's ties to the mob. It was an interesting idea, but not necessary for this movie. The two things that I thought were great in changing were the leaving out the Mayor's mob ties and the Ellen/Hooper tryst. Because of those two elements, I felt like the book lost its focus. Another difference was Brody's children: the book had three (Billy, Martin Jr., and Sean) but the movie had two (Michael and Sean). The attacks were different too: the July 4th attack in the movie was much worse than the book's. The whole boat scene was different in that they came ashore every night in the book, which didn't give you the idea that there was any real sense of danger. The book also had Hooper die when the cage is attacked, which doesn't upset the reader because he isn't the nice guy he is in the movie. The ending of the book is rather subtle and anticlimactic. The one thing the book has over the movie is the town politics. If the shark runs off the summer crowd, the town dies, and a conspiracy is hatched to quiet it down, which Brody doesn't like, but he has to go along with it. Similar to the movie, but in the book his hands are figuratively tied, which is why the scene in the movie with Brody and Mrs. Kintner is so powerful, but I don't like the scene without some of the buildup from the book. Reading the book makes that scene more powerful.
The movie is an impressive achievement in filmmaking, and everything in it seems to work. Everything from the acting, the dialogue, the music, the lighting. It has a timeless feel, and very little of it is really dated (maybe some hair styles). There is rich character development in the movie and the characters (even the unlikeable ones) are great. The opening scene is one of the best openers. The lack of seeing the shark is a great idea, even though it was unintended. The shark kept breaking, so they couldn't use it as much as planned, but that only added to the Hitchcock feeling.
All in all, this is one of the best movies ever, and certainly one of the best thriller/horror of all time. My opinion is that the book is pretty good, but it lacks so much. If in doubt as to whether to read it or watch it, I say watch the movie. This is one of the only times that the movie is a hundred times better than the book.
Here is a link to the original long trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt_JTkUVL6I
The novel Jaws was written by Peter Benchley who went on to write many novels about the oceans and sharks, but Jaws was his debut novel. It was an instant success, and two producers (David Brown and Richard Zanuck) both read the novel and wanted to make it a movie. After one failed director, Zanuck and Brown got Steven Spielberg to direct.
The script went through many versions which is normal, but the versions it went through were interesting. Peter Benchley wrote the first draft of the script. He was told to cut out the backstory and make it a simple A-Z adventure story. So, he did. Spielberg read the book, then wrote a complete script of his own, which very little stayed in the movie from. Howard Sackler, the great playwright, made a draft, but asked that his name be kept off the credits because he couldn't commit entirely to the movie. Carl Gottlieb wrote a draft of the script as well, and actually has a part in the movie (Meadows, the reporter). Also, John Milius, Sackler, and Robert Shaw wrote parts of the USS Indianapolis speech. Filming was never-ending, as it took about 8 months to film. But when it was released, it was an immediate sensation.
The story, on the other hand, was similar to the book's, but it deviated many times for many reasons. It's hard to say which was the biggest change. In my opinion, the interactions of the characters was the biggest. In the movie, Hooper and Brody become good friends very quickly, whereas the book shows them constantly about to jump at each other, mostly out of jealousy and distrust. Quint is like a hired hand in the book who doesn't really care about anything but making a little money for his trouble until the very end. Another big difference is the change of backstory. In the book, Hooper was from the island as was Ellen. Ellen and Hooper's older brother once dated, and when Hooper comes back to town, they start a tryst (which is where the distrust comes between Hooper and Brody). In the movie, Ellen and Brody are not from the island. Also, they are new to the island, whereas the book puts them in their fourth year on the island, so they know a lot about the island. Another bit that I don't think worked was Mayor Vaughn's ties to the mob. It was an interesting idea, but not necessary for this movie. The two things that I thought were great in changing were the leaving out the Mayor's mob ties and the Ellen/Hooper tryst. Because of those two elements, I felt like the book lost its focus. Another difference was Brody's children: the book had three (Billy, Martin Jr., and Sean) but the movie had two (Michael and Sean). The attacks were different too: the July 4th attack in the movie was much worse than the book's. The whole boat scene was different in that they came ashore every night in the book, which didn't give you the idea that there was any real sense of danger. The book also had Hooper die when the cage is attacked, which doesn't upset the reader because he isn't the nice guy he is in the movie. The ending of the book is rather subtle and anticlimactic. The one thing the book has over the movie is the town politics. If the shark runs off the summer crowd, the town dies, and a conspiracy is hatched to quiet it down, which Brody doesn't like, but he has to go along with it. Similar to the movie, but in the book his hands are figuratively tied, which is why the scene in the movie with Brody and Mrs. Kintner is so powerful, but I don't like the scene without some of the buildup from the book. Reading the book makes that scene more powerful.
The movie is an impressive achievement in filmmaking, and everything in it seems to work. Everything from the acting, the dialogue, the music, the lighting. It has a timeless feel, and very little of it is really dated (maybe some hair styles). There is rich character development in the movie and the characters (even the unlikeable ones) are great. The opening scene is one of the best openers. The lack of seeing the shark is a great idea, even though it was unintended. The shark kept breaking, so they couldn't use it as much as planned, but that only added to the Hitchcock feeling.
All in all, this is one of the best movies ever, and certainly one of the best thriller/horror of all time. My opinion is that the book is pretty good, but it lacks so much. If in doubt as to whether to read it or watch it, I say watch the movie. This is one of the only times that the movie is a hundred times better than the book.
Here is a link to the original long trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt_JTkUVL6I
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)